I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days, and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I'm not afraid of ext4's newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for years. So a-benchmarking I went. Results at the bottom: http://tastic.brillig.org/~jwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html Short version: ext4 is awesome. zfs has absurdly fast metadata operations but falls apart on sequential transfer. xfs has great sequential transfer but really bad metadata ops, like 3 minutes to tar up the kernel. It would be nice if mke2fs would copy xfs's code for optimal layout on a software raid. The mkfs defaults and the mdadm defaults interact badly. Postmark is somewhat bogus benchmark with some obvious quantization problems. Regards, jwb - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
